Dear Wikimedia community,
Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee Mrs. Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously involved with the movement before she passed away.
This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr. Guillaume Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who already had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise unchanged.
The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly expressed by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on September 9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board members to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed then.
Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation on the 25th and 26th of July.
Best regards,
Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France
Thank you kindly Édouard for sharing this update on all fronts. I am so terribly sorry to hear about the passing of Louise Merzeau.
Warm thoughts and regards. SJ
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Édouard Hue edouard.hue@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Dear Wikimedia community,
Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee Mrs. Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously involved with the movement before she passed away.
This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr. Guillaume Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who already had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise unchanged.
The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly expressed by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on September 9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board members to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed then.
Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation on the 25th and 26th of July.
Best regards,
Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I want to express my sincere condolences and I can understand that this event will have a strong impact on WMFR.
Samuele2002
Il 24/Lug/2017 07:07 AM, "Samuel Klein" meta.sj@gmail.com ha scritto:
Thank you kindly Édouard for sharing this update on all fronts. I am so terribly sorry to hear about the passing of Louise Merzeau.
Warm thoughts and regards. SJ
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Édouard Hue edouard.hue@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Dear Wikimedia community,
Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee
Mrs.
Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously
involved
with the movement before she passed away.
This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr.
Guillaume
Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who
already
had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise unchanged.
The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly
expressed
by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on
September
9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board
members
to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed then.
Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation
on
the 25th and 26th of July.
Best regards,
Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Édouard,
Thank you for this information.
Condolences on the passing of your colleague Louise.
The news about WMFR that has been sent to this mailing list during the past few weeks is a matter of serious concern. I hope that there will be progress on clarifying the facts and, if it seems prudent, making changes to improve the governance and leadership of WMFR. I am glad to hear that the WMF staff visit will happen soon. I hope that revoking the chapter agreement between WMF and WMFR can be avoided, although sometimes a fresh start is the "least bad" option. I am glad to hear that the WMFR members have indicated their support for a general assembly, that the WMFR Board has acknowledged this demand, and that the general assembly has been scheduled.
Please keep us updated on the situation at WMFR.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Édouard Hue edouard.hue@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Dear Wikimedia community,
Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee Mrs. Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously involved with the movement before she passed away.
This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr. Guillaume Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who already had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise unchanged.
The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly expressed by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on September 9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board members to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed then.
Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation on the 25th and 26th of July.
Best regards,
Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However, I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges. Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by someone I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However, I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges. Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit :
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by someone I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However, I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges. Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit :
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
did
not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
gotten
along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful
for
the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
her
article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit
:
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
did
not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
the
Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
gotten
along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for
the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
have
come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
and
bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
her
passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
her
article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us... * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda... * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda. * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members * Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue * the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil * the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon * The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo * and the former president who is now regular member: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit
:
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
did
not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
the
Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
gotten
along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for
the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
have
come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
and
bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
her
passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
her
article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit
:
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
did
not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
the
Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
gotten
along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for
the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
have
come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
and
bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
her
passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
her
article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello dear all,
at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement.
Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the chapter status
- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in course.
The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.
I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the force is always easier and quicker.
Greetings
Ting
Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit
:
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, > > We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
did
> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
the
> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the > relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
gotten
> along well. > > Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for
> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
> greatly from her continued advocacy. > > I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can > quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
have
> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
and
> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
her
> passing. > > On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our > thoughts and that the community has our condolences. > > Katherine > > PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
her
> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Correct Ting
At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it. I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
Flo
Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :
Hello dear all,
at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement.
Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding,
missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the chapter status
- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back
in course.
The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.
I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the force is always easier and quicker.
Greetings
Ting
Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me... > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a > écrit
:
> > Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by someone > I can not recognize from the username. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher > <kmaher@wikimedia.org
> wrote: > >> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, >> >> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. >> While I did >> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
the
>> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities >> and the >> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would >> have gotten >> along well. >> >> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for >> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited >> greatly from her continued advocacy. >> >> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this >> can >> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However, >> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
have
>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The >> passion
and
>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges. >> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
her
>> passing. >> >> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is >> in our >> thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >> >> Katherine >> >> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her >> life from her >> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear All, Remi's email is symptomatic of the kind of communication we have been confronted with when asking questions (I repeat : questions, because all the so called opponants did in the first place was to question). No wonder people are unhappy: they are invited to do exactly the contrary to what we are used to in the Wikimedia projects: debate and search consensus though confrontation of different ideas. As for the "silent majority" representing 70%, they are just silent. Maybe they dont understand, dont care, dont have the information or support the current board: we cannot assume without an open conversation what their ideas are. This is why it is important to discuss AND vote before the GA assembly to make sure all interested members.
Furthermore: last year if I remember correctly, there were 130 people participating to the GA. Now 74 members asking for a GA is about half of them. Not just a few members.. Words and numbers have precise meaning, that can just not be avoided.
With wikilove Natacha /Nattes à chat
Le 3 août 2017 à 14:16, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com a écrit :
Correct Ting
At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it. I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
Flo
Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit : Hello dear all, at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement. Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the chapter status
- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in course.
The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course. I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the force is always easier and quicker. Greetings Ting
Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman: Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote: The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit : The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote: > > probably me... >> Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit : >> >> Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by > someone >> I can not recognize from the username. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org > >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, >>> >>> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I > did >>> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the >>> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the >>> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have > gotten >>> along well. >>> >>> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful > for >>> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have > benefited >>> greatly from her continued advocacy. >>> >>> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can >>> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. > However, >>> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have >>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and >>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or > challenges. >>> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her >>> passing. >>> >>> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our >>> thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >>> >>> Katherine >>> >>> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from > her >>> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
About Louise, IMHO if you care about someone who has recently died, you should dedicate a whole separated email to the topic.
Of course, if I had specifically any feeling that a mail will be at the center of a critical discussion, I would not put any reference to a dead person right there. I'd send two mail, in this case one about the situation of WMFr and one in memoriam of Louise. You ask different member of the board to do that, so every confusion is avoided.
That's what I though when I read the mail from E. Hue: "why here?" For the future, let's try not to mix "business emails" with obituaries. Just my personal advice.
Alessandro
Il Giovedì 3 Agosto 2017 14:45, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com ha scritto:
Dear All, Remi's email is symptomatic of the kind of communication we have been confronted with when asking questions (I repeat : questions, because all the so called opponants did in the first place was to question). No wonder people are unhappy: they are invited to do exactly the contrary to what we are used to in the Wikimedia projects: debate and search consensus though confrontation of different ideas. As for the "silent majority" representing 70%, they are just silent. Maybe they dont understand, dont care, dont have the information or support the current board: we cannot assume without an open conversation what their ideas are. This is why it is important to discuss AND vote before the GA assembly to make sure all interested members.
Furthermore: last year if I remember correctly, there were 130 people participating to the GA. Now 74 members asking for a GA is about half of them. Not just a few members.. Words and numbers have precise meaning, that can just not be avoided.
With wikilove Natacha /Nattes à chat
Le 3 août 2017 à 14:16, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com a écrit :
Correct Ting
At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it. I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
Flo
Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit : Hello dear all, at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement. Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the chapter status
- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in course.
The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course. I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the force is always easier and quicker. Greetings Ting
Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman: Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote: The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9...
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit : The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote: > > probably me... >> Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit : >> >> Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by > someone >> I can not recognize from the username. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org > >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, >>> >>> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I > did >>> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the >>> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the >>> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have > gotten >>> along well. >>> >>> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful > for >>> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have > benefited >>> greatly from her continued advocacy. >>> >>> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can >>> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. > However, >>> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have >>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and >>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or > challenges. >>> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her >>> passing. >>> >>> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our >>> thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >>> >>> Katherine >>> >>> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from > her >>> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the rights/power/authority to do this? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.ht ml [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit
:
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
did
not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
the
Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
gotten
along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for
the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
have
come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
and
bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
her
passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
her
article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership to communicate with each other.
Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently between a few people getting more email than they want and complete dysfunctional takeover.
Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement"?
Sincerely, Jim
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the rights/power/authority to do this? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.ht ml [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
probably me...
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit
:
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
someone
I can not recognize from the username.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, > > We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. > While I
did
> > not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate > for
the
> > Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and > the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we > would have
gotten
> > along well. > > Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for
> > the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited
> > greatly from her continued advocacy. > > I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this > can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
However,
> > I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people > who
have
> > come together under a shared vision for a better future. The > passion
and
> > bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges.
> > Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to > recognize
her
> > passing. > > On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in > our thoughts and that the community has our condolences. > > Katherine > > PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life > from
her
> > article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi James,
A matter of concern is that WMF is far from having an exemplary record of good governance and transparency. It's problematic for WMF to be pointing fingers at other organizations and telling them to improve their governance.
On the other hand, based on my limited understanding of the facts, it seems to me that the situation with WMFR shouldn't be allowed to continue indefinitely. Pulling the chapter agreement should be an option, although I would prefer that that option be exercised by someone other than the WMF staff and/or WMF Board. I don't think that the Affiliations Committee would be a good option either, at least not with its present form, since it is an advisory committee to the WMF Board and it relies on a charter from the WMF Board for its authority, which means that the Affiliations Committee could be easily manipulated by the WMF Board and in any case a decision from the Affiliations Committee would need the approval of the WMF Board.
I think that most people would prefer that the existing WMFR organization be returned to good health, but if that doesn't happen in a timely manner, then there are a lot of difficult choices to be made, unfortunately.
Pine
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:20 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership to communicate with each other.
Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently between a few people getting more email than they want and complete dysfunctional takeover.
Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement"?
Sincerely, Jim
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the
rights/power/authority to do this?
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce
a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com
wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial
audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact
them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.ht ml [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com
wrote:
probably me... > > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a > écrit
:
> > > Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started > by
someone > > I can not recognize from the username. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher > <kmaher@wikimedia.org
> wrote: > >> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, >> >> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. >> While I
did >> >> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate >> for
the
>> >> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and >> the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we >> would have
gotten >> >> along well. >> >> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful
for >> >> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
benefited >> >> greatly from her continued advocacy. >> >> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this >> can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of
us.
However, >> >> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people >> who
have
>> >> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The >> passion
and
>> >> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
challenges. >> >> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to >> recognize
her
>> >> passing. >> >> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in >> our thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >> >> Katherine >> >> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life >> from
her >> >> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As a general question, Pine, what do you think is the optimal amount of time that the Foundation should allow a chapter agreement to persist when, as in this case, allegations of financial impropriety and use of the trademarks to enrich chapter officials' side projects are followed by removal of access to the chapter mailing list and refusal to agendize an audit and recall?
Do we have a healthier movement if the Foundation signals, by lack of action, that they will tolerate such conditions and require the ordinary membership to do so much extra legwork to organize the muted membership?
Would requiring the ordinary membership to form an alternative organization in order to address this issue encourage other chapters' officials to use the trademarks for their personal benefit, too?
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
A matter of concern is that WMF is far from having an exemplary record of good governance and transparency. It's problematic for WMF to be pointing fingers at other organizations and telling them to improve their governance.
On the other hand, based on my limited understanding of the facts, it seems to me that the situation with WMFR shouldn't be allowed to continue indefinitely. Pulling the chapter agreement should be an option, although I would prefer that that option be exercised by someone other than the WMF staff and/or WMF Board. I don't think that the Affiliations Committee would be a good option either, at least not with its present form, since it is an advisory committee to the WMF Board and it relies on a charter from the WMF Board for its authority, which means that the Affiliations Committee could be easily manipulated by the WMF Board and in any case a decision from the Affiliations Committee would need the approval of the WMF Board.
I think that most people would prefer that the existing WMFR organization be returned to good health, but if that doesn't happen in a timely manner, then there are a lot of difficult choices to be made, unfortunately.
Pine
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:20 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership to communicate with each other.
Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently between a few people getting more email than they want and complete dysfunctional takeover.
Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of harm to the movement"?
Sincerely, Jim
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the
rights/power/authority to do this?
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce
a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com
wrote:
The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that.
Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial
audit...
According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
But to make things easier for us...
- some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda...
- in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda.
- the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact
them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it.
How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior.
So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Please, do realy our call in your network.
If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : "
The current board members
- Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
- the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
- the vice President :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
- The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
- and the former president who is now regular member:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
Thanks
Florence
Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
The passing of Louise is really sad :(
On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way they really are.
"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by 25% of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of inexact/false statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member for the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the agenda ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the community, but I wish we did not had to go this way.
I am truly ashamed of this board,
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.ht ml [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com
wrote:
> probably me... >> >> Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a >> écrit
: >> >> >> Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started >> by > > someone >> >> I can not recognize from the username. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher >> <kmaher@wikimedia.org > > >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, >>> >>> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. >>> While I > > did >>> >>> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate >>> for
the >>> >>> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and >>> the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we >>> would have > > gotten >>> >>> along well. >>> >>> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
grateful > > for >>> >>> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have > > benefited >>> >>> greatly from her continued advocacy. >>> >>> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this >>> can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of
us.
> > However, >>> >>> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people >>> who
have >>> >>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The >>> passion
and >>> >>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or > > challenges. >>> >>> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to >>> recognize
her >>> >>> passing. >>> >>> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in >>> our thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >>> >>> Katherine >>> >>> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life >>> from > > her >>> >>> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > Louise_Merzeau
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control.
The current situation (further) demonstrates a huge weakness in the current system of the governance of local communities. The problems being discussed here are far from unique to Wikimedia France and can be seen not only in other affiliates, but also in the long-festering problems of the administration of Wikimedia projects. As Rogol and others note... the Foundation has it hands tied to a large degree because of both legal and ideological concerns. But this means that individuals and small groups of people are able to work the system to their advantage, with little to no accountability to either their local communities or to the overall movement.
As for the idea of forming alternate organizations, that is easier said than done. I speak from my experience with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey. It took us almost 2 years to get approval from AffCom as a user group among other struggles. The privileges that chapters have in particular allow for marginalization of alternatives.
________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:38:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The comment is a little bit partial.
The governance is partially connected with the local system law. In some countries no profit association are linked to strict parameters and the governance is not an option. I don't know personally the system law of France, but I suppose that it's weaker than in other countries.
The last point is connected with the point of privileges which are, at the opposite, balanced by stricter parameters than user groups.
Chapters have some obligations compensated by few privileges, and honestly the state of User Group is at the moment the easiest way to get an official recognition by WMF.
It's sufficient to check how many user groups have been created recently and how many chapters to define clearly if there is a "marginalization of alternatives".
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 09:55, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
The current situation (further) demonstrates a huge weakness in the current system of the governance of local communities. The problems being discussed here are far from unique to Wikimedia France and can be seen not only in other affiliates, but also in the long-festering problems of the administration of Wikimedia projects. As Rogol and others note... the Foundation has it hands tied to a large degree because of both legal and ideological concerns. But this means that individuals and small groups of people are able to work the system to their advantage, with little to no accountability to either their local communities or to the overall movement.
As for the idea of forming alternate organizations, that is easier said than done. I speak from my experience with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey. It took us almost 2 years to get approval from AffCom as a user group among other struggles. The privileges that chapters have in particular allow for marginalization of alternatives.
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:38:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control.
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws....
________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
--- Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws....
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. Chagnon
Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws....
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
A few weeks ago I think I found a copy of WMFR's chapter agreement on a Wiki somewhere. I had the impression (maybe wrongly) that it renewed each January, and had to be cancelled by either party 3 months in advance if they did not wish to renew it.
That puts the WMF's decision point somewhere in late September or early October.
I believe that if there is no change in WMFR's position then the WMF owes a duty to the wider movement to withdraw the Chapter Agreement at that point. (And if I were on the WMF Board, which of course I'm not, this is what I would be saying). I don't know if WMF is officially thinking along these lines, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a plan for a worst case scenario
The special GA is the only opportunity WMFR has to demonstrate it's changing before the WMF has to make up its mind. So if WMFR Board manipulates the special GA to prevent criticism or change, then I imagine that will not be helping their position at all.
Regards,
Chris
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Gilles Chagnon contact@gchagnon.fr wrote:
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. ChagnonLe 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws....
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In any case now what we would like is an independent audit, addressing very precise questions pushed by the community of members To go through an audit to get an IDEAS label is not the same as going through an audit resulting from a governance crisis, The evaluation processes are not the same, the context is usually not the same. Ideally it would be much better if the community got involved more in what is happening in chapters, as chapters spend the money derived from the notoriety of their work as contributors, thus getting also the media attention.
Natacha Rault / Nattes à chat
Le 4 août 2017 à 12:03, Gilles Chagnon contact@gchagnon.fr a écrit :
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. Chag
Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution. It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC. The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity. Kind regards On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws....
From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation is free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to control. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_(computer_science)). A good governance, like a good algorithm, should avoid it.
The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will solve the starvation by itself.
At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external party, can unblock the starvation.
Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. ChagnonLe 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
Ilario,
A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was available for WMUK a few years ago.
Andreas
[1] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedi...
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Starvation_(computer_science)). A good governance, like a good algorithm, should avoid it.
The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will solve the starvation by itself.
At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external party, can unblock the starvation.
Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. ChagnonLe 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Ilario,
A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was available for WMUK a few years ago.
Andreas
[1] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedi...
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Starvation_(computer_science)). A good governance, like a good algorithm, should avoid it.
The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will solve the starvation by itself.
At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external party, can unblock the starvation.
Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. ChagnonLe 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
By the Board.
The dynamics were different to the current situation with Wikimedia France, in that the Wikimedia UK Board at the time was not engaged in a big fight with its community.
Regards,
Chris (chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)
Well thanks to Andreas for pointing this, I really believe that a movement advocating for the free sharing of knowledge can not afford to take royalist views on who is entitled or not to see the results of any audit and to reflect upon it.
I want to reflect on Illario’s previous words . Well it is not often I agree with Ilario on governance issues, but in this case I agree that the FDC has taken the adequate decision, one that allows us members, to point out to the board that the situation has to change on the basis of the FDC recommendation. Of course I will be called a nasty troll by the WMFR board for writing that (but now I share the condition with Ilario, which is real comforting).
Apart from this, it is not a 3 solution dilemna like exposed by Ilario previoulsy, because we are not solving a mathematical or computing problem, but initiating a negociation process with human beings embedded in a conflict who are feeling emotions. One cannot eradicate resentment by taking a computational approach to solve conflicts between humans, because humans first need to be heard before willing to collaborate : a mediation process always start by the presentation of each position. These positions usually move in the process, they are not rigid.
To be successful each party (and there are obviously more than two parties there, there are a variety of different positions) has to let the other speak and express their point of vue, otherwise we might fall in a starvation case (but surely there are less radical solutions than just the 3 ones presented by you that allow to have hope and not fear of ”plug pulling”, ”burning” ect).
If you have a look at this page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%... where a diversity of opinions and approaches are discussed to prepare the General Assembly, it will show you that we are not facing a minority showing extreme opinions: we are facing reasonable wikimedians, trying to find solutions and deeply concerned about the situation.
So it is not correct to adopt a binary approach to present the situation. I find it very positive to discover all these point of views, just I I loved reading all the different point of views in the strategic review process initiated a few months ago by the WMF. Reading all this changes my own opinions. Friction of ideas is the basis of our movement. I remember Katherine Maher saying in a speech that this confrontation with other ideas in Wikipedia helps contributors to become more tolerant, and this is a vision that truly appeals to me. We should not be afraid of diverging opinions, we should be afraid of puritan and totalitarian pictures depicting everything as perfect.
The positive thing is that the Board, whatever it does, will now have feedback and information. I work in human ressources: leaders need feedbacks to be efficient, in assessing leadership skills one will always look at the capacity of obtaining feedback, negociating, motivating and offering a vision for the future.
I would also like to highlight I find this wording of yours problematic:
"In some countries no profit association are linked to strict parameters and the governance is not an option. I don't know personally the system law of France, but I suppose that it's weaker than in other countries.”
I dont think it is adequate to assume that the French system of law is weaker than in other countries (and which countries please?). Especially since you start by saying you dont know…
Kind regards,
Natacha Le 4 août 2017 à 18:00, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com a écrit :
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
By the Board.
The dynamics were different to the current situation with Wikimedia France, in that the Wikimedia UK Board at the time was not engaged in a big fight with its community.
Regards,
Chris (chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up. The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find an issue to this crisis. ( http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff. Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.
The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure that will get the WMF moving...
Best regards Gabe
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Ilario,
A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was available for WMUK a few years ago.
Andreas
[1] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-gov ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Starvation_(computer_science)). A good governance, like a good algorithm, should avoid it.
The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will solve the starvation by itself.
At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external party, can unblock the starvation.
Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. ChagnonLe 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the
most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
--
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
It far from sum-it-up.
There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management, including * non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt and you need to grow up to become an adult" * paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to you *again* so that you *really* get it" * legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions * referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste" * refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as "no author name in wiki newsletter") * emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and confidentially discuss issues * there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private data * set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by staff in spite of being members.
There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous" expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
There are questions related to management using the resources and image of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
There are questions related to using resources of the association to gain a elected position.
And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor details".
The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find an issue to this crisis. ( http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is certification.
What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the outcome.
Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT to vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.
But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers is frankly just wrong.
Florence
I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff. Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.
The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure that will get the WMF moving...
Best regards Gabe
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
Dear All,
More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that several topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be held in september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.
The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do this has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l'ordre_du_jour
We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and start working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I am personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
#whatmakesmehappythisweek
Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand. The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
It far from sum-it-up.
There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management, including
- non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt and you need to grow up to become an adult"
- paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to you *again* so that you *really* get it"
- legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
- referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste"
- refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as "no author name in wiki newsletter")
- emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and confidentially discuss issues
- there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private data
- set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by staff in spite of being members.
There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous" expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
There are questions related to management using the resources and image of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
There are questions related to using resources of the association to gain a elected position.
And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor details".
The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find an issue to this crisis. ( http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is certification.
What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the outcome.
Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT to vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.
But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers is frankly just wrong.
Florence
I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff. Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation. The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure that will get the WMF moving... Best regards Gabe On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you Natacha for the update on the French situation. What would really make me happy this week would be to witness a goodwill or wikilove gesture by the French board: let the members who were recently expelled join up again so that we can hold some meaningful discussions. Gabe
Le 8 août 2017 2:56 AM, "Natacha Rault" n.rault@me.com a écrit :
Dear All,
More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that several topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be held in september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.
The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do this has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/ Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_% C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l%27ordre_du_jour https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3% A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l'ordre_du_jour
We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and start working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I am personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
#whatmakesmehappythisweek
Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail) fdevouard@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the
chapter
members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand. The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was
fired
for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had
their
membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it
up.
It far from sum-it-up.
There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management,
including
- non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very
involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt and you need to grow up to become an adult"
- paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not
understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to you *again* so that you *really* get it"
- legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
- referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or
"pigiste"
- refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as
"no author name in wiki newsletter")
- emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately
forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and confidentially discuss issues
- there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private
data
- set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by
staff in spite of being members.
There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment
publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous"
expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
There are questions related to management using the resources and image
of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
There are questions related to using resources of the association to
gain a elected position.
And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor
details".
The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they
are
related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us
find
an issue to this crisis. ( http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of
our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is certification.
What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the
members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the
outcome.
Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT
to vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.
But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers
is frankly just wrong.
Florence
I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and
the
results should be made available to the chapter members and to the
staff.
Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation. The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the
French
Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For
sure
that will get the WMF moving... Best regards Gabe On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ilario,
A statement[1] released at the time said,
"Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was effectively managed.
"To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest."
The present situation is not entirely dissimilar: questions about the then-board's conduct (prior to Chris Keating's chairmanship), and specifically its handling of conflicts of interest, first arose in the community and then made their way into press reports.
It's worth remembering that the above WMF/WMUK statement only came about ten days AFTER the press started picking up on this.
And while it's true that WMUK and WMF jointly commissioned the report, my recollection is that WMUK did not have much choice in the matter.
The governance review eventually vindicated the community concerns, finding that there had indeed been significant governance failings.[2]
It seems to me WMUK became a more mature organisation as a result of this episode. A similar approach and outcome may well be possible for WMFR as well.
Andreas
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia- foundation-and-wikimedia-uk/ [2] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major- overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Ilario,
A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was available for WMUK a few years ago.
Andreas
[1] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-gov ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Starvation_(computer_science)). A good governance, like a good algorithm, should avoid it.
The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will solve the starvation by itself.
At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external party, can unblock the starvation.
Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
Kind regards
--
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi All, response in lines: Dnia 4 sierpnia 2017 12:08 Gilles Chagnon <contact@gchagnon.fr> napisał(a): I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS. However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way. G. Chagnon I'd like to confirm: a proper audit includes conclusions, recommendations, deadlines etc.; making them public is worth debate but, coming from a very open chapter - I am personally in favour of openness where possible. Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit : Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most appropriate solution. It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC. I would not call the FDC "an audit". It is an external community review of a grant application as, under present circumstances, the FDC does not have the capacity, and is not being asked, to make proper audits (which IMHO should include much more work: both deeper and wider, and IMO a site visit would be a must). At the moment the FDC members do not even participate in the regular site visits (mostly due to the budget constraints). OTOH, the FDC may be indeed one of the closest things to the actual audit that we have in the Movement. If the community wishes a stronger audit in general, or a community-supported audit, perhaps it is a good opportunity to start such a discussion. Best Regards, michał "aegis maelstrom" buczyński Vice-chair of Wikimedia Poland, FDC Member
James
If the WMF is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter as if that chapter were a mere subsidiary, then it might inherit the responsibility for any content creation that the chapter had made in the past, or indeed might do in the future. Mind you, I only say "might", because I am not a lawyer, although I sat opposite one in the London Underground once. I merely suggest that someone who actually is a lawyer, preferably even employed or retained by the Foundation, should consider the matter and give the WMF a professional opinion. If you happen to be qualified to advise the Foundation on the matter, by all means do so. If not, so that your opinion on the matter is as authoritative as mine, which is to say, not at all, then perhaps you may wish to desist from discussing the matter further, as I propose to do.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:02 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement?
The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation
is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to
control.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi there, being in the train from Geneva to Paris I started to translate the page on Louise Merzeau in English.
Unfortunately I am going down now, and I am not finished… But it is available here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
I have discovered the translation tool is deactivated in english, so in fact I had to translate twice. What a shame the system allows you to proceed in the first place…
Kind regards,
Natacha
Le 26 juil. 2017 à 14:38, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org a écrit :
Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,o
We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten along well.
Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited greatly from her continued advocacy.
I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However, I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges. Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her passing.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
Katherine
PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org